1 2 3
4 5
6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORDAN HUFF, Case No. 1:19-cv-01248-JDP
12 Plaintiff, SECOND SCREENING ORDER
13 v. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 14 THOMAS MOORE, et al., ECF No. 12 15 Defendants. ORDER THAT THE CLERK’S OFFICE SEND 16 PLAINTIFF A NEW COMPLAINT FORM
18 Plaintiff Jordan Huff is a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal 20 Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On March 11, 2020, the previously assigned 21 magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s original complaint, finding that it was too brief and cursory 22 to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See ECF 23 No. 6. The judge gave plaintiff the opportunity to submit an amended complaint, which plaintiff 24 did on May 8, 2020. ECF No. 12. That amended complaint is now before the court for 25 screening. 26 Unfortunately, the amended complaint now tilts to the opposite extreme: it 85 pages long, 27 proceeds defendant-by-defendant (rather than claim-by-claim), includes dozens of pages of 28 assorted attachments, and has added numerous named and unnamed defendants. Once again, the 1 court finds that the pleading fails to satisfy Rule 8’s requirement of “a short and plain statement 2 of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” It also fails to state a claim. The court 3 will give plaintiff another chance to cure pleading deficiencies by filing a second amended 4 complaint within thirty (30) days. 5 At this stage, the court believes that plaintiff would be best served by a general overview 6 of the major pleading issues and deficiencies that must be cured. First, the court strongly 7 recommends that plaintiff use a complaint form—using attached pages only as necessary—rather 8 than the lengthy, sprawling, defendant-by-defendant structure offered in the first amended 9 complaint. In the court’s experience, plaintiffs are almost always able to plead their claims 10 successfully in fewer than 20 pages, and plaintiff need not attach assorted pieces of supporting 11 evidence at this early stage. All of plaintiff’s claims appear to concern medical treatment for his 12 scalp problems. If so, he should move quickly and chronologically through the events related to 13 his scalp treatment—and, as described below, must allege more than a delay in treatment. 14 Second, there is no “supervisory” liability under Bivens. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 15 662, 676 (2009) (“Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of 16 their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior.”). Instead, “a plaintiff must plead that 17 each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated 18 the Constitution.” Id. (emphasis added). At several points in the complaint, see, e.g., ECF No. 12 19 at 8, plaintiff suggests that defendants are liable because of their supervisory role. This is not 20 enough. 21 Third, to state a claim that prison medical care violated the Eighth Amendment, plaintiff 22 must plead facts suggesting that each defendant was “deliberately indifferent” to a “serious” 23 medical need. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-105 (1976). This is a two-part test: it 24 requires allegations suggesting that the underlying condition is objectively “serious” and that 25 defendants had a bad state of mind in treating it—a state of mind that goes beyond even medical 26 negligence or malpractice. The court cannot determine whether plaintiff’s current allegations 27 meet this standard. 28 1 A medical need is serious “if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in 2 further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” McGuckin v. Smith, 3 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations omitted). While plaintiff’s scalp 4 condition may be sufficiently serious, he must plead additional facts clarifying whether and how 5 this is so. Deliberate indifference, meanwhile, requires a showing that “the course of treatment 6 the [medical officials] chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and that the 7 defendants chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the plaintiff’s health.” 8 Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2016). This is a high standard. Isolated 9 incidences of neglect do not suffice; nor do mere disagreements over the best course of treatment. 10 See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 11 (9th Cir. 2004). In addition, a “mere delay” in treatment, “without more, is insufficient to state a 12 claim of deliberate medical indifference.” Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 13 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff must show that the delay “would cause significant harm 14 and that Defendants should have known this to be the case.” Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 15 746 (9th Cir. 2002). Misdiagnosis alone is also insufficient as a basis for a claim. See Wilhelm v. 16 Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012). 17 Many of plaintiff’s allegations appear to suggest that treatment of his scalp problems have 18 been delayed—possibly by misdiagnosis—and plaintiff may be understandably frustrated by such 19 delay, but he must plead more facts to clear the high bar of “deliberate indifference.” 20 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 21 We have screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and find that it fails to satisfy Rule 22 8’s requirement of a “a short and plain statement” and fails to state a claim for which relief may 23 be granted. Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint if he wishes to proceed with this suit. 24 If plaintiff fails to amend his complaint within thirty days, the court will issue findings and 25 recommendations that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for the reasons stated in this order. 26 27 28 1 Should plaintiff choose to amend the complaint,1 the amended complaint should be brief, 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what actions each named defendant took that deprived plaintiff 3 of constitutional or other federal rights. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 4 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim to 5 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 6 Plaintiff must allege that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. 7 See Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Again, a concise statement in which the allegations are ordered 8 chronologically will help the court identify his claims. Plaintiff should describe how each 9 defendant wronged him, the circumstances surrounding each of the claimed violations, and any 10 harm he suffered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3
4 5
6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORDAN HUFF, Case No. 1:19-cv-01248-JDP
12 Plaintiff, SECOND SCREENING ORDER
13 v. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE IN THIRTY DAYS 14 THOMAS MOORE, et al., ECF No. 12 15 Defendants. ORDER THAT THE CLERK’S OFFICE SEND 16 PLAINTIFF A NEW COMPLAINT FORM
18 Plaintiff Jordan Huff is a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal 20 Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On March 11, 2020, the previously assigned 21 magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s original complaint, finding that it was too brief and cursory 22 to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See ECF 23 No. 6. The judge gave plaintiff the opportunity to submit an amended complaint, which plaintiff 24 did on May 8, 2020. ECF No. 12. That amended complaint is now before the court for 25 screening. 26 Unfortunately, the amended complaint now tilts to the opposite extreme: it 85 pages long, 27 proceeds defendant-by-defendant (rather than claim-by-claim), includes dozens of pages of 28 assorted attachments, and has added numerous named and unnamed defendants. Once again, the 1 court finds that the pleading fails to satisfy Rule 8’s requirement of “a short and plain statement 2 of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” It also fails to state a claim. The court 3 will give plaintiff another chance to cure pleading deficiencies by filing a second amended 4 complaint within thirty (30) days. 5 At this stage, the court believes that plaintiff would be best served by a general overview 6 of the major pleading issues and deficiencies that must be cured. First, the court strongly 7 recommends that plaintiff use a complaint form—using attached pages only as necessary—rather 8 than the lengthy, sprawling, defendant-by-defendant structure offered in the first amended 9 complaint. In the court’s experience, plaintiffs are almost always able to plead their claims 10 successfully in fewer than 20 pages, and plaintiff need not attach assorted pieces of supporting 11 evidence at this early stage. All of plaintiff’s claims appear to concern medical treatment for his 12 scalp problems. If so, he should move quickly and chronologically through the events related to 13 his scalp treatment—and, as described below, must allege more than a delay in treatment. 14 Second, there is no “supervisory” liability under Bivens. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 15 662, 676 (2009) (“Government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of 16 their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior.”). Instead, “a plaintiff must plead that 17 each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated 18 the Constitution.” Id. (emphasis added). At several points in the complaint, see, e.g., ECF No. 12 19 at 8, plaintiff suggests that defendants are liable because of their supervisory role. This is not 20 enough. 21 Third, to state a claim that prison medical care violated the Eighth Amendment, plaintiff 22 must plead facts suggesting that each defendant was “deliberately indifferent” to a “serious” 23 medical need. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-105 (1976). This is a two-part test: it 24 requires allegations suggesting that the underlying condition is objectively “serious” and that 25 defendants had a bad state of mind in treating it—a state of mind that goes beyond even medical 26 negligence or malpractice. The court cannot determine whether plaintiff’s current allegations 27 meet this standard. 28 1 A medical need is serious “if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in 2 further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” McGuckin v. Smith, 3 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations omitted). While plaintiff’s scalp 4 condition may be sufficiently serious, he must plead additional facts clarifying whether and how 5 this is so. Deliberate indifference, meanwhile, requires a showing that “the course of treatment 6 the [medical officials] chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and that the 7 defendants chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the plaintiff’s health.” 8 Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2016). This is a high standard. Isolated 9 incidences of neglect do not suffice; nor do mere disagreements over the best course of treatment. 10 See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 11 (9th Cir. 2004). In addition, a “mere delay” in treatment, “without more, is insufficient to state a 12 claim of deliberate medical indifference.” Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 13 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff must show that the delay “would cause significant harm 14 and that Defendants should have known this to be the case.” Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 15 746 (9th Cir. 2002). Misdiagnosis alone is also insufficient as a basis for a claim. See Wilhelm v. 16 Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012). 17 Many of plaintiff’s allegations appear to suggest that treatment of his scalp problems have 18 been delayed—possibly by misdiagnosis—and plaintiff may be understandably frustrated by such 19 delay, but he must plead more facts to clear the high bar of “deliberate indifference.” 20 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 21 We have screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and find that it fails to satisfy Rule 22 8’s requirement of a “a short and plain statement” and fails to state a claim for which relief may 23 be granted. Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint if he wishes to proceed with this suit. 24 If plaintiff fails to amend his complaint within thirty days, the court will issue findings and 25 recommendations that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for the reasons stated in this order. 26 27 28 1 Should plaintiff choose to amend the complaint,1 the amended complaint should be brief, 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what actions each named defendant took that deprived plaintiff 3 of constitutional or other federal rights. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 4 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim to 5 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 6 Plaintiff must allege that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. 7 See Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Again, a concise statement in which the allegations are ordered 8 chronologically will help the court identify his claims. Plaintiff should describe how each 9 defendant wronged him, the circumstances surrounding each of the claimed violations, and any 10 harm he suffered. 11 If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede 12 the original complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en 13 banc). This means that the amended complaint must be complete on its face without reference to 14 the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the 15 original complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 16 original complaint, plaintiff must assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in 17 sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer 18 to the appropriate case number. 19 Accordingly, 20 1. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must file a Second Amended 21 Complaint. 22 2. Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action. 23 3. The clerk’s office is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form.
24 25 26 1 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims or new, 27 unrelated defendants in his amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18; George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different 28 suits . . . .”). 4:40 LETOUV EAT □□□ tO POC Ie Ye VI > IT IS SO ORDERED. ° p : —N prssann — Dated: _ September 4, 2020 4 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 | No. 205. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28